TEST OF LETTER TO BOARD PRESIDENT:

7 June 2016

Delivered Via Electronic Mail
Heather Bennett, Board President
℅ Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Cannibalization of the Salt Lake City School District

Dear President Bennett,

As per your request, I am advising you in advance of tonight’s meeting, my reasons why I cannot support the new Superintendent’s contract as currently displayed on the consent agenda. Moreover, the manipulative manner in which you have imposed this version of the contract on the Board of Education is not only damaging to the relationship between to the newly appointed Superintendent and the Board, it is a disservice to the residents of Salt Lake City. First of all, I maintain that Board appointments in our District should coincide with the approval of an employment contract, [1] they should not be treated as separate issues occurring months apart as you have orchestrated with this appointment. [2] The contract should also be written with input from all members of the Board, not to their exclusion.

TIMELINE
On April 21, 2016, the Board reached consensus to choose Dr. Cunningham as the next Superintendent of the Salt Lake City School District. At that time, it was decided that the Board would agree upon the elements of a contract in the next Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday April 26^th.

On April 24, 2016, you sent an email to the Board at 9:53 a.m. (Sunday) with a Superintendent contract informing us that we needed to get back to you “before the end of the day”, to advise you if we had “major objections”.                 

On April 25, 2016, when I read your email, I replied with the following (excerpt):

“…The proposed contract to Alexia is fiscally irresponsible and I cannot support this version…In this case, the selection process for Superintendent has lost its transparency. It is extremely manipulative for you to send an email on Sunday with a deadline of a same day response from members of the Board.” [3]

The Board met that evening (instead of Tuesday) and I was led to believe that many of the concerns I had raised would be rectified in the next version of the contract. Later that same evening, the Board publicly voted to offer Dr. Cunningham the Superintendent’s position. [4] It was my understanding that the Board would meet again to negotiate the elements of her contract.

On June 4, 2016, I received my copy of the Board agenda for tonight’s meeting. I was shocked to see a final version of the contract on the ‘consent agenda’ for tonight’s meeting. I believe it is a slap in the face to the Board and those that elected us, for you to place this on the consent agenda without first reconvening the Board for our input and consensus of the Superintendent’s contract.

CONTRACT
I am calling into question, the following components of the contract:

1. Incoming Superintendent’s attorney is allowed to set the parameters of the contract.
2. Removal of the sentence: ‘Select all personnel subject to approval of the Board’.
3. There are no standards or limits set for the Superintendent’s ‘Performance Bonus’.
4. The Board can dismiss the Superintendent ‘For Cause’ upon a 2/3 vote of the Board (as opposed to a majority vote)

I question the wisdom of allowing an attorney hired by the incoming Superintendent to set the parameters of the contract and then you slip it into the “consent agenda” without first allowing review and input from members of the Board. [5] Current state law and Board policy, are implicit in stating that the authority to appoint, enter into a contract and terminate the employment of a Superintendent rests with the local Board of Education. [6] While I am okay with the new Superintendent proposing her version of a contract, I see no value in leaving out the other part of this equation, the members of the Board.

Secondly, why remove the sentence: ‘Select all personnel subject to approval of the Board’? I would argue that it is vital to keep this phrase in the contract so that there is no ambiguity as to the Board and Superintendent relationship when it comes to issues of personnel. Current Board Policy states, under the heading of Responsibilities:

The board has all of the powers assigned to it by law and regulation to meet its statutory responsibilities…Employ by contract and set salary schedules for the superintendent and business administrator and approve the contracts and salary schedules for principals, teachers, and other employees of the district. [7]

Thirdly, it concerns me that under the heading of ‘Performance Review’, there is no cap on the amount of a bonus nor does it have criteria that would need to be met for the Superintendent to be eligible for a bonus. To that end, I am recommending that we place a 2% cap on a potential performance bonus. In your April version of this contract you were insisting on Board approval via email within a 12 hour window; not only did you propose an over the top amount on a salary, you also proposed a double digit performance bonus. Those amounts is what caused me to state that the contract was “fiscally irresponsible” and as a steward over this District, I could not in good conscious agree to the exorbitant amounts of dollars in the contract.

I view the current language as nothing more than an end-run around my objections to the over the top salary and performance bonus that you were proposing in the April version of this contract. Furthermore, I believe it to be insulting and injurious to the good work of our current teachers and administrators when we agree to a disproportionate amount of compensation for a newly appointed Superintendent.

Finally, I would betray the trust that my constituents placed in me, if I were to agree to the concept that the Superintendent can be suspended or dismissed “for cause” only upon a 2/3 vote of the Board. I am disappointed that the newly appointed Superintendent would even propose such a scheme. On some level, it boggles the mind as to why you would think that abdicating Board authority to a newly hired employee is in anyone’s best interest. If we got to the point where four of us lost confidence in the Superintendent, who would it serve to have this community locked into that kind of a relationship? The Board Handbook states:

The superintendent is an appointed public official, the district’s chief executive, and an employee of the board. Only the board can employ, evaluate, discipline, or dismiss the superintendent. [8]

The Handbook further states that we are to arrive at those decisions in the following manner:

Board decisions should accurately reflect the public’s interests. Statutes of the state of Utah require local school boards to make decisions by majority vote… [9]

Board Policy states:

Exception to a policy may be made by majority vote of board members in a duly authorized meeting. Each policy remains in force until altered or superseded by action of the board. [10]

Roberts Rules of Order provides the following definition:

A majority [11] is more than half of the votes cast…the basic requirement for approval of an action or a choice except when a rule provides for a higher vote to adopt. [12]

As per our current policies and practice, it took a minimum of four Board members to appoint the Superintendent. Under current policy, that same number is required to suspend or terminate the Superintendent’s employment with this District. If the 2/3 threshold remains in the contract and is approved by the Board, not only is it contrary to current policy; this type of arrangement sends the message to the community, that the Board places the interests of the adults in the system, over those of our children. If we expect the public to believe that we abide by the mantra: “kids first”, then we should not place ourselves in a situation where we have to maintain the employment of a Superintendent at the expense of our educators, students and community.

In closing, I do have other issues with the language in the contract. I will however, submit those on a separate document as they do not rise to the level of seriousness of those that I have outlined in this letter.

I also want to say, that if we are to truly experience any level of healing as we make this transition to a new Superintendent, then it is imperative that as Board president you respect the voices of all members of the Board and allow members the opportunity to appropriately represent the interest of the communities that elected them.

When you constantly attempt to silence my voice and exclude my contributions as to the direction of this District you perpetuate the “system of oppression” of the dominant group that continues to exercise power and privilege over communities of Color. I leave you with the words of Dr. Tim Wise as he gives an apt description of the prevailing attitude within the leadership of this District.

“…After all, acknowledging unfairness then calls decent people forth to correct those injustices. And since most persons are at their core, decent folks, the need to ignore evidence of injustice is powerful: To do otherwise would force whites to either push for change (which they would perceive as against their interests) or live consciously as hypocrites who speak of freedom and opportunity but perpetuate a system of inequality…In other words. It is a privilege to ignore the consequences of race in America.” [13]

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

cc: Salt Lake City Board of Education
Mayor Biskupski, Salt Lake City
Chairman James Rogers, Salt Lake City Council
Councilman Andrew Johnston, Salt Lake City Council, District 2
Superintendent Cunningham (contract pending)

Michael with Dr. Christy – Summer of 2014

24 October 2015

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Ms. Kathleen Christy, Assistant Superintendent
℅ Department of Educational Equity Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Letter of Apology

Dear Dr. Christy,

I am writing to apologize for the way that Superintendent McKell Withers treated you this past week when he announced the restructure of the superintendence’s office. While I do not speak for the man, you should know that I do not support his current recommendation (see attached).

Furthermore, in making the announcement this past Wednesday at the General Administrators Meeting (GAM), Mr. Withers acted outside of the bounds of his role. I was also told by those that were present that he stated words to the effect that he had not yet spoken to you but would get with you after the meeting to let you know “where you fit in”. That is so sad and ignorant.

Nevertheless, the authority to create and authorize new positions within the District rest with the Board of Education. The Board has not had the opportunity to sit in council and deliberate on this weighty matter. To that end, I have requested that this issue be placed on the Boards, November 3, 2015, meeting agenda.

Moreover, I object to the proposed appointment of an all WHITE District leadership within the Superintendent’s Office. I object to the appointment of all WHITE principals at the District’s five High Schools. Mr. Withers seems to ignore the fact that we are a MAJORITY, ethnic-minority school district!  By my count, I find 18 adults of Color, currently employed by the District that have the same level of education or higher, than the three recommended appointees to the superintendency.

I find it significant, that all of the people of Color in my count, have or now serve as a Principal or Assistant Principal. In contrast, one of Mr. Wither’s recommended appointments has never served as a principal, another of the proposed appointees has only served as a Principal of a Charter school. Is that really enough experience to supervise administrators that have spent years working in Title I Schools? In this proposed restructure, what justification does Mr. Withers give for placing an African American women with an Ed.D into a subordinate position to a Caucasian man with a Masters degree? These are questions people within and out of the District are asking and they deserve to receive answers.

To date, my questions to the Mr. Withers have been met with scorn, disdain and accusations as though I am another one his employees of Color. As the representative voice of the people of West Salt Lake City, I have made my position clear on this matter. I have also consistently demonstrated, that ignoring and belittling me when I raise questions does not make the issue go away nor does it slow me down.

I was recently, wisely counseled, the time for holding out the “begging bowl” is now past. To that end, I am in the process of filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. The basis of the complaint is that that the Superintendent’s Disparate Treatment of the ethnic minority administrators has a Disparate Impact on the students of Color.

In closing, I want to thank you for your professionalism, courage, and forthright example of dignity. I admire your ability to work within an organization that offers you so very little of the virtues you so richly demonstrate.
Shalom,
J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

Enclosure (1)

cc: Pastor France A. Davis – Vice Chair, Board of Regents
Senator Escamilla, Representative Romero, Representative Hollins,        Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck
Equity Leadership Team, SLCSD & SLSA
CMAC, USOE & U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
IMAGE de NU, La RAZA of Utah, LULAC, NAACP, National Tongan American Society, Proyecto Latino  

Current Administrators of Color in the SLCSD – List Compiled by Michael Clára
Linda Barth [Hispanic] –Assistant Principal, Bryant Middle School
Frances Battle [African American]—Principal, Nibley Park Elementary
Sandra Buendia, Ed.D  [Hispanic]—Assistant Principal, East High School
David Chavez [Hispanic]—Assistant Principal, Horizonte
Dahlia Cordova [Hispanic]—Principal, Bennion Elementary School
Kathleen Christy, Ed.D [African American]–Equity/Advocacy Director
Paula Espinoza-Wells [Hispanic]— Assistant Principal, Escalante Elementary School
Jenny Mayer-Glenn [Hispanic]—Assistant Principal, Mountain View Elementary School
Liz Gonzalez [Hispanic] —Principal, Escalante Elementary School
Joyce Gray [African American] – Principal, Riley Elementary
Betty Jimenez [Hispanic] –District Equity/Advocacy, ALS Coordinator
Bobbie Kirby Ed.D [African American]—Principal, Ensign Electuary School
Haloti Liava’a [Pacific Islander]—Assistant Principal, Horizonte Alternative High School
Rae Louie [Asian American]—Principal, Beacon Heights Elementary School
Claustina Mahon-Reynolds Ph.D candidate [African American]—Assistant Principal, Northwest Middle School
Lamar Spotted Elk [American Indian]—Assistant Principal,  Jackson Elementary School
Mele Taukei’aho Ph.D [Pacific Islander]—Assistant Principal, West High School
James Yapias [Hispanic]—Principal, Bryant Middle School

PDF Version of Letter

ReOrg Chart

Superintendent Withers

TEXT OF LETTER TO McKell Withers:

22 October 2015

DELIVERED: ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. McKell Withers, Superintendent
℅ Salt Lake City School District (District)
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111    

 Re: Superintendent’s Violation of Board Policy B-1

Dear Superintendent Withers,
I have received multiple calls from administrators advising me that in Wednesday’s, General Administrator Meeting (GAM), you announced a reorganization of the District management structure by creating three new positions: Chief Academic Officer, Chief School Improvement Officer and Chief Operations Officer. I was further advised that you promoted three District employees to these newly announced positions. I am also told that Board President Heather Bennett was present at the GAM meeting when you publicly announced these appointments. Despite her presence, your actions do not have the sanction of the Board of Education. The purpose of this letter is to place you on notice that you have over stepped the bounds of your authority and you are in violation of State Statue [1] and Board Policy [2]. The authority to create new positions in the District rest with the Board of Education not with the Superintendent of schools.  [3] Furthermore, your actions are an assault on the Board’s agreement with the Salt Lake Association of School Administrators (SLASA).[4]

Equally troubling to me, is the fact that this unauthorized act on your part, has created an “ALL WHITE”, District leadership to govern a majority, ethnic-minority, student body. We now have a District with a Caucasian Superintendent. The next level down, we have a Caucasian Chief Academic Officer, Caucasian Chief School Improvement Officer, and a Caucasian Chief Operations Officer. The next level down, we have an all Caucasian School Support Staff. The next level down, would be the Principals of the five high schools in our District which are all Caucasian.

That picture alone, is reason enough to put a stop to your unauthorized appointments. We are all aware of extremely capable African American, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and American Indian educators with a Masters, EdD or PhD degree already employed within the District, yet you cannot see your way to appoint any of them to these upper levels of management.

I recognize that it is an uncomfortable subject to broach. However, author Gary Howard tells us:

The most stable societies…are those in which negative reference groups accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical structure, thus internalizing their oppression by rationalizing to themselves their place in the scheme of thing.

As an elected representative of the most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, I refuse to rationalize what you are trying to do. I echo the words of Dr. Howard:

Even though we sometimes may be tempted to close the discussion about White Dominance, we have a responsibility to our students to assure that we and our colleagues remain open to ever deeper levels of awareness. It is the unexamined nature of White Dominance that is often our problem…If our examination and understanding of the root causes of social inequity are too shallow, then our approach to corrective action will necessarily be superficial and ineffective. If we do not face dominance we may be predisposed to perpetuate it.

The magnitude of this proposed restructuring is a matter that should come before the Board of Education. I demand that this issue be posted on the Board’s next business meeting agenda; this will allow the Board to sit in council with each other and exercise the authority that was given to us by the PEOPLE. Shame on you and the Board President for crafting this type of despicable (organizational) social engineering within our communities.  I can assure you, legal consequences will follow if you do not stop this foolishness.
Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

P.S. Please send me a copy of the organization chart you handed out at the GAM meeting. I am also requesting a copy of the qualifications of the three you announced as being elevated to the status of “Chief Officer”.

Letter To Board President

At the October 6, 2015 Board of Education Meeting, I distributed the following letter to members of the Board. Without even knowing of its contents the Board President and immediate past president declared that it should not be made part of the minutes of the meeting (see video below).

TEXT OF THE LETTER:

6 October 2015

Hand Delivered
Ms. Heather Bennett, Board President
℅ Salt Lake City Board of Education
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Superintendent Search Agenda Request

Dear Ms. Bennett,

I am writing to request that the issue of the new Superintendent search be placed on the agenda of our next meeting. I would also request that the hiring of a new Superintendent become a top priority for the Board of Education.

On August 28, 2015, Superintendent Withers sent out a memo notifying the Board of his intent to leave the District. The last line states:

I will be meeting with our board leadership in the weeks ahead to further discuss and plan for a thoughtful, professional, and purposeful transition of district leadership [1]

As a duly elected member of the Board, I reject the Superintendent’s stated course of action. The planning for a “transition of district leadership” rest with the entire Board of Education, not with McKell Withers nor with a “group of members” [2] of the Board:

Power belongs not to individual members of a Board of Education but to the Board of Education acting as a corporate body through collective action. Board members have authority only when acting as a Board of Education in a legally constituted session, with a quorum present. The statement or action of an individual member or group of members of the Board of Education does not bind the Board of Education itself, except when that statement or action is specifically authorized by an official act of the board. [3]

I was advised that in a recent General Administrators Meeting (GAM), Superintendent Withers told those present that he would be involved in deciding who the next Superintendent of the District would be. I reject that notion, as that is not his role.

Moreover, the Board should ensure, insist and demand that we initiate a new Superintendent search, free of the current central office’s bureaucratic meddling and manipulation that has vexed this District for the past decade.

I believe that the time has come for the majority of the Board to exercise the authority that is rightfully ours in setting the direction and future of this District. State law declares:

(1)        …A local school board shall appoint a district superintendent of schools who serves as the local school board’s chief executive officer.

  (2)         A local school board shall appoint the superintendent on the basis of outstanding professional qualifications. [4]

I recommend that we review the process followed by our neighbor, the Canyons School District (see attached) and adopt some or all of the processes they followed in successfully hiring a new Superintendent. One of their first steps was to publish an RFP for a search consultant in order to obtain professional advice and guidance.

More importantly, it appears that they followed an open and public process. I of course recognize that transparency is a foreign concept to the current administration of Salt Lake City School District and select members of the Board. Nevertheless, a new and exciting day is on the horizon for our District and I am hopeful we can turn the page and start a new chapter free of the contamination of the past. On behalf of the residents that elected me, [5] I submit this request for your review and subsequent action.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

Enclosures: 2

cc: Board of Education

Withers 08/28/15 Memo to the Board

Angry Elitist at the Board of Education (video link)